[Cites 14, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Vinayak Shripati Karad vs The State Of Maharashtra on 20 February, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:7610
CRI WP NO. 1935 OF 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1935 OF 2024
1] Rukminbai Vishnu Karad
Age : 65 yrs. Occ. : Household
R/o. Rameshwar, Tq. Latur
District : Latur
2] Pallavi Bharat Karad
Age : 40 yrs. Occ. : Household
R/o. Rameshwar, Tq. Latur
District : Latur
3] Vijay Shahaji Gambhire
Age : 48 yrs. Occ. : Agriculture
R/o. Hanuman Nagar, Ambajogai
Tq. Ambajogai, District : Beed. ...Petitioners
VERSUS
1] The State Of Maharashtra
Through the Police Inspector
Gategao Police Station,
Tq. and Dist. Latur.
2] Vinayak Shripati Karad
Age : 50 yrs.Occ. Agriculture
R/o. Rameshwar, Tq. Latur
District : Latur. ...Respondents
...
• Dr. R. R. Deshpande, Advocate h/f. Ms. Priyanka Ramesh
Deshpande, Advocate for the Petitioners
• Mr. A. S. Shinde, APP for Respondent No. 1 - State
• Mr. H. D. Deshmukh, Advocate for Respondent No. 2
...
Jhs/ PAGE NO. 1
CRI WP NO. 1935 OF 2024
WITH
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 91 OF 2025
1] Vinayak Shripati Karad,
Age : 50 years, Occ: Agri.,
R/o. Rameshwar, Tq. & Dist. Latur. ...Petitioner
VERSUS
1] The State Of Maharashtra
Through Investigating Officer,
Gategaon Police Station, Dist. Latur. ...Respondent
...
• Mr. Himmatsinh D. Deshmukh, Advocate for the Petitioner
• Mr. A. S. Shinde, APP for Respondent - State
...
CORAM : MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J.
RESERVED ON : 03.02.2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 20.02.2026
JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
2. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1935 of 2024 is filed by the applicants -
Rukminbai Vishnu Karad, Pallavi Bharat Karad and Vijay Shahaji
Gambhire, thereby challenging the order dated 23.09.2024 passed below
Exhibit 50 under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in
Sessions Case No. 18 of 2021 by the Court of the learned Additional
Sessions Judge-3, Latur, whereby the present applicants were directed to
be added as accused in the said crime and to be tried together with the
charge-sheeted accused.
CRI WP NO. 1935 OF 2024
3. Criminal Writ Petition No. 91 of 2025 is filed by the complainant -
Vinayak Shripati Karad, thereby challenging the very same order dated
23.09.2024 passed below Exhibit 50 under Section 319 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure in Sessions Case No. 18 of 2021, whereby the
application dated 30.08.2023 filed by him seeking addition of five
accused persons came to be partly allowed by directing addition of
accused namely Rukminbai Vishnu Karad, Pallavi Bharat Karad and Vijay
Shahaji Gambhire and rejecting the prayer insofar as addition of
Vishwanath Dadarao Karad and Ramesh Kashinath Karad.
4. Since both the writ petitions arise out of the common order dated
23.09.2024, they are heard and decided together by this common order.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Dr. R. R. Deshpande, Advocate
h/f. Ms. Priyanka Ramesh Deshpande, Advocate, in Criminal Writ
Petition No. 1935 of 2024, vehemently submits that the incident
occurred on 01.05.2020 and the FIR came to be lodged on 03.05.2020. It
is further submitted that a perusal of the FIR would show that three (03)
incidents are mentioned, all of which allegedly took place on the date of
the incident, i.e. 01.05.2020. The first incident is stated to have occurred
at about 05:00 p.m., the second incident allegedly at about 05:30 p.m.,
and the third incident allegedly at about 08:30 p.m. on the same date.
Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the First
Information Report itself would show that, right from the beginning and
CRI WP NO. 1935 OF 2024
from the first alleged incident mentioned therein, only seven (07)
accused persons, who are charge-sheeted, were named as assailants who
had allegedly assaulted the complainant / respondent No. 2 and the
other injured witnesses and not the applicants. The complainant,
Vinayak Shripati Karad, was undergoing medical treatment after the
alleged assault and his statement was recorded in the presence of a
Medical Officer, who had certified his fitness. The version put forth by
the complainant later on that the present applicants were also involved
in the assault stands falsified by the fact that no complaint was made by
the complainant at the relevant time regarding non-inclusion of the
applicants as accused by the police authorities. The first such complaint
was made by the complainant only on 22.06.2020 before the
Superintendent of Police, Latur, alleging non-inclusion of the names of
the present applicants as accused, which, according to the learned
counsel, was with an intention to create a basis to wreak vengeance
against all the family members of the main accused. It is further
submitted that the statement of the complainant under Section 164 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure came to be recorded after about one and
a half months of the incident, i.e. on 26.06.2020, and for the first time,
the names of the present applicants were disclosed as assailants in the
said statement of the complainant, Vinayak Karad. The said conduct on
the part of the complainant, according to the learned counsel, clearly
CRI WP NO. 1935 OF 2024
falsifies the claim that there exists any credible evidence to prosecute the
applicants in the said crime.
6. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners in
Criminal Writ Petition No. 1935 of 2024 that the statements of the
witnesses, namely Madan Jadhavar, Babasaheb Karad, Vilas Karad,
Pravin Karad and Shripati Karad, recorded by the prosecution and
forming part of the charge-sheet, would clearly show that the present
applicants were never named by any of the aforesaid eye-witnesses as
assailants who had assaulted the complainant on the date of the
incident. It is further submitted that amongst the aforesaid witnesses,
some are injured eye-witnesses, whose evidence carry greater evidentiary
value in law, and the omission of the names of the present applicants /
petitioners from their statements, by itself, falsifies the case of the
complainant insofar as the attempt to implicate the present petitioners in
the present crime is concerned.
7. The said act on the part of the complainant in including the names
of the lady members of the family of the accused persons is stated to be
an attempt to counter the allegations made in the counter FIR No. 67 of
2020, wherein Gaulanbai, the mother of the complainant Vinayak Karad,
is also arrayed as an accused. It is, therefore, submitted that with a view
to include the family members of the accused, the petitioners Rukminbai
Karad and Pallavi Karad have been deliberately arrayed as accused. It is
CRI WP NO. 1935 OF 2024
further submitted that the medical certificates of the victim would show
that the victim had suffered only simple injuries and, as such, the silence
on the part of the complainant and his injured family members in not
naming the present petitioners as accused in the initial statements
recorded by the police authorities clearly indicates the intention of the
complainant to somehow falsely implicate the petitioners, who are family
members of the main accused.
8. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that the learned Trial
Court has relied upon the testimony of PW-1, i.e. the complainant
Vinayak Karad, and on the basis of the examination-in-chief of the said
complainant, has allowed the application filed by the complainant
seeking addition of the present applicants as accused. It is submitted that
the deposition of prosecution witness No.1, namely the complainant
Vinayak Karad, was insufficient to arrive at the degree of satisfaction
required for addition of the applicants as accused in the present crime.
The learned Trial Court ought to have waited for the testimony of other
material witnesses to establish that the applicants were actually present
at the spot and had assaulted the victim / complainant. A perusal of the
statements of the eye-witnesses clearly falsifies the case sought to be
made out against the applicants and, therefore, the satisfaction arrived at
by the learned Trial Court stands vitiated. Consequently, the impugned
order directing the applicants to be added as accused and to be tried in
CRI WP NO. 1935 OF 2024
the aforesaid offences is liable to be interfered with by setting aside the
impugned order dated 23.09.2024.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners in Criminal Writ Petition No.
1935 of 2024, Mr. Deshpande, further relied upon the judgment of
Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Others, reported in AIR 2014 SC
1400, to submit that the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has laid down guiding principles to be considered before adding
any person as an accused during the course of trial, as contemplated
under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned
counsel submits that the Constitution Bench framed five questions with
regard to the exercise of powers under Section 319 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure by the learned Trial Court. The Constitution Bench
framed Question No. IV as under:--
"IV. What is the degree of satisfaction required for invoking the
powers under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. to arraying as accused?"
10. In the case of Hardeep Singh (Supra),the constitution bench of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under :-
"89. In Rajendra Singh (Supra), the Court observed :
"Be it noted, the court need not be satisfied that he has
committed an offence. It need only appear to it that he has
committed an offence. In other words, from the evidence it
need only appear to it that someone else has committed an
offence, to exercise jurisdiction under Section 319 of the
Code. Even then, it has a discretion not to proceed, since
the expression used is "may" and not "shall". The
legislature apparently wanted to leave that discretion to
the trial court so as to enable it to exercise its jurisdiction
CRI WP NO. 1935 OF 2024
under this section. The expression "appears" indicates an
application of mind by the court to the evidence that has
come before it and then taking a decision to proceed under
Section 319 of the Code or not."
90. In Mohd. Shafi (Supra), this Court held that it is evident
that before a court exercises its discretionary jurisdiction in terms
of Section 319 Cr.P.C., it must arrive at a satisfaction that there
exists a possibility that the accused so summoned in all likelihood
would be convicted.
91. In Sarabjit Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., AIR
2009 SC 2792, while explaining the scope of Section 319 Cr.P.C., a
two-Judge Bench of this Court observed :
".....For the aforementioned purpose, the courts are
required to apply stringent tests; one of the tests being
whether evidence on record is such which would
reasonably lead to conviction of the person sought to be
summoned......Whereas the test of prima facie case may be
sufficient for taking congnizance of an offence at the stage
of framing of charge, the court must be satisfied that there
exists a strong suspicion. While framing charge in terms of
Section 227 of the Code, the court must consider the entire
materials on record to form an opinion that the evidence if
unrebutted would lead to a judgment of conviction.
Whether a higher standard be set up for the purpose of
invoking the jurisdiction under Section 319 of the Code is
the question. The answer to these questions should be
rendered in the affirmative. Unless a higher standard for
the purpose of forming an opinion to summon a person as
an additional accused is laid down, the ingredients thereof
viz. (I) an extraordinary case, and (ii) a case for sparingly
(sicsparing) exercise of jurisdiction, would not be
satisfied."
(Emphasis added)"
11. Learned counsel further relies upon the aforesaid Constitution
Bench judgment to submit that the satisfaction required to be recorded
by the Trial Court must be founded on much stronger evidence than
mere probability of the complicity of the accused. The test to be applied
CRI WP NO. 1935 OF 2024
is one which is higher than the standard of a prima facie case as
exercised at the stage of framing of charge. In the absence of such
satisfaction, the Court ought to refrain from exercising its powers under
Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is further submitted
that while answering Question No. IV, the Constitution Bench has held
that the degree of satisfaction required for summoning a person as an
accused under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is distinct
and higher than that required at the stage of taking cognizance or
framing of charge.
12. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Deshpande further
relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hetram @
Babli Vs. State of Rajasthan & Another; Criminal Appeal No. 4656 of
2024 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 4253 of 2023) , wherein this
Court has observed as under :-
"7. This Court in the case of Hardeep Singh(2014) 3 SCC 92 has
observed that the test to be applied for dealing with the application
under Section 319 of the CRPC is of more than a prima facie which is
required to be considerd at the time of framing of the charge. The test
to be applied is that if the evidence goes unrebutted, whether it would
lead to conviction. The Court has to record satisfaction in such terms
and if such satisfaction cannot be recorded, the Court should refrain
from exercising power under Section 319 of the CRPC.
8. ........
9. In the facts of the case, the occasion for considering the
application under Section 319 of the CRPC arose after the cross-
examination of the only eye witnesses was recorded. Therefore, while
deciding an application under Section 319 of the CRPC, the Court must
consider the cross-examination as well. If an application under Section
CRI WP NO. 1935 OF 2024
319 of the CRPC is made after the cross-examination of witnesses, it
will be unjst to ignore the same. The power under Section 319 of the
CRPC cannot be exercised when ther is no case made out against the
persons sought to be implicated. In ivew of the omissions which are
material and which amount to contradiction, obviously no Court could
have recorded a satisfaction which is contemplated by Section 319 of
the CRPC. It is impossible to record a finding that even a prima facie
case of involvement of the appellant has been made out."
13. Thus, taking into consideration the aforesaid pronouncements of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is vehemently submitted by the learned
counsel for the petitioners in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1935 of 2024
that there is sufficient material on record to indicate that the
examination-in-chief of the prosecution witnesses, if subjected to cross-
examination by the proposed accused, would have resulted in omissions
which are material in nature and which could have amounted to
contradictions. Consequently, the satisfaction required to be recorded in
terms of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench could not have
been arrived at, thereby rendering the exercise of power under Section
319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for addition of the applicants as
accused as vitiated. The learned counsel for the petitioners, therefore,
submits that the omission on the part of the complainant to name the
present applicants as accused initially in the FIR and also in the
statements of the eye-witnesses would clearly demonstrate that the
examination-in-chief of prosecution witness No.1, namely the
complainant Vinayak Karad, itself constitutes an improvement which
CRI WP NO. 1935 OF 2024
could have turned into a omission upon cross-examination. As such, the
said evidence does not satisfy the requirements laid down by the
Constitution Bench for exercising powers under Section 319 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure for addition of the accused / petitioners. Learned
counsel, therefore, submits that the impugned order is illegal, contrary to
the requirements and guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in various judgments, and is thus liable to be set aside.
14. As against this, learned counsel Mr. Deshmukh appearing for the
petitioner in Criminal Writ Petition No. 91 of 2025 and for respondent
No.2 - the complainant in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1935 of 2024,
vehemently opposes Criminal Writ Petition No. 1935 of 2024 filed by the
petitioners and supports the impugned order dated 23.09.2024. Learned
counsel Mr. Deshmukh further submits that the learned Trial Court has
duly applied its mind to the fact that the complainant had already moved
an application to the Superintendent of Police, Latur, making a grievance
regarding non-inclusion of the present applicants and other two persons
as accused in the FIR, by submitting a complaint dated 22.06.2020. It is
further submitted that not only had such a complaint been made to the
Superintendent of Police, but the complainant / petitioner in Criminal
Writ Petition No. 91 of 2025 had also recorded his statement under
Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 26.06.2020, wherein
he specifically implicated the present applicants as accused along with
CRI WP NO. 1935 OF 2024
two persons not added by the Trial Court as accused. The deposition of
the petitioner herein, namely the complainant Vinayak Karad, clearly sets
out the role attributed to the petitioners in Criminal Writ Petition No.
1935 of 2024 as assailants, while attributing the role of conspiracy to the
other two persons, in respect of the assault committed on the
complainant on 01.05.2020. Thus, taking into consideration the
deposition of the complainant Vinayak Karad in his examination-in-chief,
the complaint dated 22.06.2020 addressed to the Superintendent of
Police, Latur, as well as the statement of the complainant recorded under
Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 26.06.2020 by the
learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, the learned Trial Court recorded
the requisite satisfaction that the petitioners in Criminal Writ Petition No.
1935 of 2024 are required to be charge-sheeted and tried for the
aforesaid offences along with the already charge-sheeted accused.
15. Learned counsel Mr. Deshmukh further submits that two persons,
namely Vishwanath Dadarao Karad and Ramesh Kashiram Karad, were
also shown as conspirators in the offence and that they were wielding
political influence and financial power and were, in fact, the persons
behind the assault. It is submitted that their names were specifically
mentioned not only in the complaint dated 22.06.2020 made to the
Superintendent of Police, Latur, but also in the statement of the
complainant recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal
CRI WP NO. 1935 OF 2024
Procedure on 26.06.2020. The deposition of the complainant further
reveals that the informant has categorically stated that on account of a
civil dispute, the aforesaid proposed accused Vishwanath Dadarao Karad
and Ramesh Kashiram Karad had given "supari" and hired assailants
with an intention to kill the complainant, which ultimately resulted in
the incident dated 01.05.2020, wherein the charge-sheeted accused
allegedly carried out the assault.
16. It is therefore submitted that the impugned order dated
23.09.2024, insofar as it partly allowed the application filed under
Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure but refused to add
Vishwanath Dadarao Karad and Ramesh Kashiram Karad as accused in
the aforesaid crime, is liable to be set aside to that extent. Learned
counsel Mr. Deshmukh further submits that the names of the aforesaid
two proposed accused were consistently mentioned in the complaint
dated 22.06.2020, in the statement of the complainant recorded under
Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 26.06.2020, as well as
in the deposition of the complainant recorded before the learned Trial
Court. According to the learned counsel, the impugned order is therefore
misconceived insofar as the role attributed to the aforesaid two proposed
accused is concerned and is liable to be interfered with by directing that
Vishwanath Dadarao Karad and Ramesh Kashiram Karad also be
prosecuted for the aforesaid offences.
CRI WP NO. 1935 OF 2024
17. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Criminal Writ
Petition No. 91 of 2025 has relied upon the following judgments in
opposition to the petition filed by the newly added accused, contending
that no separate or prior hearing is required to be afforded to the
proposed accused at the stage of exercise of powers under Section 319 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure.
• Jamin Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh; Criminal Appeal No. 1184 of
2025 (Arising out of SLP (Cri.) No. 6320 of 2024)
• Yashodhan Singh and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and
Another; 2023 (9) SCC 108
• Omi @ Omkar Rathod and Another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
and Another; 2025 SCC OnLine SC 27
• Sandeep Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and Another; 2023 AIR (SC)
• Jitendra Nath Mishra Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another;
2023 AIR (SC) 2757
18. I have carefully gone through the evidence of Vinayak Karad
recorded by the learned Trial Court on 08.08.2023. I have also perused
the application dated 30.08.2023 filed by the petitioner Vinayak Karad
before the Trial Court seeking addition of five persons as accused in the
aforesaid crime in exercise of powers under Section 319 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, as well as the impugned order dated 23.09.2024
passed by the learned Trial Court.
CRI WP NO. 1935 OF 2024
19. On perusal of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Others, AIR 2014 SC 1400, it is
evident that the Constitution Bench, after considering and relying upon
earlier judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajendra Singh Vs.
State of U.P. and Another , AIR 2007 SC 2786; Mohd. Shafi Vs. Mohd.
Rafiq and Another, AIR 2007 SC 1899; and Sarabjit Singh and Another
Vs. State of Punjab and Another, AIR 2009 SC 2792, has crystallised the
legal position governing the exercise of powers under Section 319 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure. The following paragraphs of the aforesaid
judgments are relevant for the present controversy:
"98. Power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is a discretionary and an extra-
ordinary power. It is to be exercised sparingly and only in those cases
where the circumstances of the case so warrant. It is not to be exercised
because the Magistrate or the Sessions Judge is of the opinion that
some other person may also be guilty of committing that offence. Only
where strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the
evidence led before the court that such power should be exercised and
not in a casual and cavalier manner.
99. Thus, we hold that though only a prima facie case is to be
established from the evidence led before the court not necessarily tested
on the anvil of Cross-Examination, it requires much stronger evidence
than mere probability of his complicity. The test that has to be applied is
one which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of
framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the
evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction. In the absence
of such satisfaction, the court should refrain from exercising power
under Section 319 Cr.P.C. In Section 319 Cr.P.C. the purpose of providing
if 'it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused
has committed any offence' is clear from the words "for which such
person could be tried together with the accused." The words used are
not 'for which such person could be convicted'. There is, therefore, no
CRI WP NO. 1935 OF 2024
scope for the Court acting under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to form any opinion
as to the guilt of the accused."
20. The perusal of the aforesaid observations of the Constitution
Bench in Hardeep Singh (supra) as well as in Hetram @ Babli (supra)
would show that the standard required to be applied while dealing with
an application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is
higher than the mere existence of a prima facie case, as is required at the
stage of framing of charge. The test to be applied is whether the evidence
on record, if left unrebutted, would be sufficient to lead to the conviction
of the proposed accused. The Court is therefore required to record its
satisfaction in those terms, and if such satisfaction cannot be arrived at
on the basis of the material on record, the Court ought to refrain from
exercising powers under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hetram @ Babli
(Supra) was pleased to observe as under :-
"8. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent - State relied
upon the first sentence of paragraph 106 of the aforesaid judgment. In a
given case, if power under Section 319 is sought to be exercised before
cross-examination of material witnesses, the Court cannot postpone the
consideration of the prayer under Section 319 of the CRPC on the
ground that the cross-examination of the witnesses is yet to be
recorded."
22. The submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the
petitioners, Mr. Deshpande, in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1935 of 2024,
therefore, cannot be accepted to the extent that the consideration of the
CRI WP NO. 1935 OF 2024
application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ought
to have been deferred till the completion of cross-examination of the
prosecution witnesses in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Hetram @ Babli (supra). The learned Trial
Court was not required to mechanically defer consideration of the
application merely because the cross-examination of the prosecution
witnesses was yet to be conducted. However, upon taking into
consideration the material placed on record, which formed part of the
charge-sheet, and as rightly noticed, the discrepancies between the
contents of the FIR and the statements of the witnesses, who had not
even named the present petitioners as assailants assume significance.
These discrepancies indicate that there was a serious error in the exercise
of discretionary powers by the Trial Court.
23. It is not a case where the petitioners were initially arrayed as
accused in the crime and subsequently dropped at the stage of filing of
the charge-sheet. The petitioners were not arrayed as accused when the
FIR was lodged and when the statements of the witnesses were initially
recorded. It was only upon recording of the statement of the first
informant under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that the
present petitioners were, for the first time, named as assailants and the
two respondents in Criminal Writ Petition No. 91 of 2025 were alleged to
be conspirators in the said crime. Even thereafter, the prosecution did
CRI WP NO. 1935 OF 2024
not deem it appropriate to array them as accused in the charge-sheet.
Consequently, the charge-sheet came to be filed against other accused
persons and not against the three petitioners in Criminal Writ Petition
No. 1935 of 2024 and the two respondents in Criminal Writ Petition No.
91 of 2025.
24. The perusal of the statements of the injured eye-witnesses
recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reveals
that the names of the petitioners in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1935 of
2024 were not mentioned therein. Similarly, the omission on the part of
the complainant to name the aforesaid petitioners as assailants in the
First Information Report is a relevant circumstance, which ought to have
been duly considered by the learned Trial Court before deciding the
application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
25. On the basis of the examination-in-chief of the complainant,
wherein the complainant attributed specific roles to the present
petitioners as assailants, the learned Trial Court proceeded to allow the
application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure without
recording the degree of satisfaction as mandated in Hardeep Singh
(supra).
26. For instance, the deposition of the complainant Vinayak Karad
attributes a role to Rukminbai and Pallavi of catching hold of witness
Pravin while accused Santosh assaulted Pravin with a stick on his head
CRI WP NO. 1935 OF 2024
with an intention to kill. However, the statement of witness Pravin
recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not
disclose any such role attributed to Rukminbai, Pallavi, or Vijay, either in
assaulting Pravin or in catching hold of him during the alleged incident.
27. In view of these omissions, which go to the root of the matter, the
satisfaction recorded by the learned Trial Court while adding the
petitioners in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1935 of 2024 as accused stands
vitiated, as it does not meet the test laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Hardeep Singh (supra) and reiterated in Hetram @ Babli
(supra).
28. It is a settled principle of law that the Courts must rely upon the
intrinsic worth of the evidence and apply the yardstick of probability
while avoiding fanciful conjectures. A perusal of the impugned order
reveals that although the learned Trial Court rejected the application
insofar as it sought to add the two respondents as conspirators, terming
it as fanciful, it nevertheless succumbed to a similar fanciful version of
the complainant while allowing the application to add petitioner Nos. 1
to 3 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1935 of 2024 as accused. This was
done despite the fact that they were not named as assailants in the FIR
nor in the statements of the injured eye-witnesses, whose version would
carry greater evidentiary value.
CRI WP NO. 1935 OF 2024
29. The learned Trial Court, though justified in not waiting for the
cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses before deciding the
application under Section 319 of the Code, was nevertheless required to
assess whether the evidence brought on record even at the stage of
examination-in-chief was of such quality and credibility that, if left
unrebutted, it would reasonably lead to conviction. The examination-in-
chief of the complainant, when tested on the anvil of the standard of
credible and cogent evidence required for invoking powers under Section
319 of the Code, does not inspire confidence insofar as the alleged role
of the present petitioners in the crime is concerned. The material does
not disclose strong and cogent evidence warranting their addition as
accused. The learned Trial Court, therefore, committed an error in
exercising its jurisdiction under Section 319 of the Code by directing
addition of the names of the petitioners in Criminal Writ Petition No.
1935 of 2024 as accused. However the learned Trial Court has rightly
refused to add Vishwanath Karad and Ramesh Karad as accused in the
crime. The impugned order, to that extent, is unsustainable and is liable
to be set aside. Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious
matter and cannot be treated as a perfunctory exercise. Unless the Court
is satisfied to the degree required, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Hardeep Singh (Supra), the learned Trial Court ought not to
have added the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 1935 of 2024 as accused.
CRI WP NO. 1935 OF 2024
30. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the
petitioner in Criminal Writ Petition No. 91 of 2025 are distinguishable on
facts and do not advance his case. In the present matter, the evidence
brought on record does not satisfy the degree of satisfaction mandated
for exercise of powers under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hardeep Singh
(supra) and Hetram @ Babli (supra). Hence, the reliance placed upon
the said authorities is misplaced.
31. Thus, taking into consideration the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Hardeep Singh (supra) and Hetram @ Babli (supra),
the impugned order dated 23.09.2024 is liable to be interfered with.
32. Hence, the following order:
ORDER
A) The Writ Petition No. 1935 of 2024 is hereby allowed.
B) The Writ Petition No. 91 of 2025 is hereby dismissed.
C) The impugned order dated 23.09.2024 passed below Exhibit 50 in
Sessions Case No. 18 of 2021 by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge-3, Latur, insofar as it directs addition of the petitioners in
Criminal Writ Petition No. 1935 of 2024, namely Rukminbai
Vishnu Karad, Pallavi Bharat Karad and Vijay Shahaji Gambhire, as
accused in exercise of powers under Section 319 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, is hereby quashed and set aside.
CRI WP NO. 1935 OF 2024
D) The impugned order dated 23.09.2024, insofar as it rejects the
prayer for addition of Vishwanath Dadarao Karad and Ramesh
Kashiram Karad as accused, is maintained.
33. It is clarified that the observations made herein are prima facie in
nature and shall not influence the learned Trial Court while deciding the
case on merits against the charge-sheeted accused.
34. Rule is made absolute in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1935 of 2024
and discharged in Criminal Writ Petition No. 91 of 2025.
35. There shall be no order as to costs.
( MEHROZ K. PATHAN )
JUDGE
